|
|
On October 10 2019 22:24 CraigWT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 21:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 10 2019 21:49 CraigWT wrote:
Let me tell you the storyline, mid of June when extradition bill news first come out, maybe over a million hk people come out and did a peaceful demonstration and after that the government did the amendment about the bill, then the early July maybe 100k -200k people do the first big protest and started limited violence, Canada extradites its citizens to the USA. This does not mean US laws are enforced in Canada. Can you explain how the extradition bill violates the rights of Hong Kong citizens and then how the amendment to the extradition bill changed things? The key issue is two things: 1. The commissioner has the right to decide if the criminal suspects shall be extradited, 2. What kind of crime shall be included in the extradition bill. Since commissioner always has close relationships with Beijing and hk people have no faith on Chinese legal system, so hk people worried that Beijing can arrest whoever they want as long as the hk people have ever visited the mainland China. Then amendment is made that only several serious kinds of crime are included, like murder rape robbery etc, what they worried like politic/economy crime are excluded, and also the evidence shall be checked by HK legal system. The amended one I think is fine. If you did such crime, you shall get punished. But still some of hk people think PRC is like an evil, if they want to arrest you they will make fake evidence etc, and don’t accept any kind of extradition (in my opinion, if you think mainland China is such bad, you shall never visit mainland, and then there is no way they can find you guilty). And some of them are being told that even thought hk government make a compromise, they will do what they want eventually (pass the first draft), so we shall stop the government at very beginning. So why hk citizen think it will affect their freedom? Simple, for example, if a citizen is in hk and always has negative comment against PRC, PRC hate this citizen and can do nothing. But after the extradition PRC can say that such citizen is against Chinese law when he visited the mainland (making up some fake evidence), and ask hk government to extradite this citizen. So they think they lost their freedom (but IMO, they just have strong bias against PRC).
so China reacted by compromising? if China reacted by compromising and amending the bill so that it is like most extradition deals between neighbouring allies then China did the right thing.
|
On October 10 2019 23:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 22:24 CraigWT wrote:On October 10 2019 21:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 10 2019 21:49 CraigWT wrote:
Let me tell you the storyline, mid of June when extradition bill news first come out, maybe over a million hk people come out and did a peaceful demonstration and after that the government did the amendment about the bill, then the early July maybe 100k -200k people do the first big protest and started limited violence, Canada extradites its citizens to the USA. This does not mean US laws are enforced in Canada. Can you explain how the extradition bill violates the rights of Hong Kong citizens and then how the amendment to the extradition bill changed things? The key issue is two things: 1. The commissioner has the right to decide if the criminal suspects shall be extradited, 2. What kind of crime shall be included in the extradition bill. Since commissioner always has close relationships with Beijing and hk people have no faith on Chinese legal system, so hk people worried that Beijing can arrest whoever they want as long as the hk people have ever visited the mainland China. Then amendment is made that only several serious kinds of crime are included, like murder rape robbery etc, what they worried like politic/economy crime are excluded, and also the evidence shall be checked by HK legal system. The amended one I think is fine. If you did such crime, you shall get punished. But still some of hk people think PRC is like an evil, if they want to arrest you they will make fake evidence etc, and don’t accept any kind of extradition (in my opinion, if you think mainland China is such bad, you shall never visit mainland, and then there is no way they can find you guilty). And some of them are being told that even thought hk government make a compromise, they will do what they want eventually (pass the first draft), so we shall stop the government at very beginning. So why hk citizen think it will affect their freedom? Simple, for example, if a citizen is in hk and always has negative comment against PRC, PRC hate this citizen and can do nothing. But after the extradition PRC can say that such citizen is against Chinese law when he visited the mainland (making up some fake evidence), and ask hk government to extradite this citizen. So they think they lost their freedom (but IMO, they just have strong bias against PRC). so China reacted by compromising? if China reacted by compromising and amending the bill so that it is like most extradition deals between neighbouring allies then China did the right thing.
Yes they made compromise, but the key thing is for riots and people who support the riots, they don’t trust the entire PRC legal system, they think your compromise will not stop you arresting hk people if you want, so they will deny any extradition bill between mainland and hk, whatever the bill itself is reasonable or not. And till now, extradition bill itself does not matter, the riots are seeking for independence. I don’t want to comment about what they think is right or wrong, but I just don’t agree they are using violence, threating people’s security, to force government, force us to agree with them. In fact, many of us think they are no different with the RED GUARDS in the culture revolution period in China. A restaurant owner claim supporting the hk police, then they destroyed the restaurant, a normal guy yelling hk belongs to China, they beat the guy, they don’t allow any different voices, it is not the freedom at all. So I personally hold strong negative feeling to those people who know nothing about the current situation of hk and just saying I support the protest, give them freedom.
|
On October 10 2019 23:47 CraigWT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 23:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 10 2019 22:24 CraigWT wrote:On October 10 2019 21:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 10 2019 21:49 CraigWT wrote:
Let me tell you the storyline, mid of June when extradition bill news first come out, maybe over a million hk people come out and did a peaceful demonstration and after that the government did the amendment about the bill, then the early July maybe 100k -200k people do the first big protest and started limited violence, Canada extradites its citizens to the USA. This does not mean US laws are enforced in Canada. Can you explain how the extradition bill violates the rights of Hong Kong citizens and then how the amendment to the extradition bill changed things? The key issue is two things: 1. The commissioner has the right to decide if the criminal suspects shall be extradited, 2. What kind of crime shall be included in the extradition bill. Since commissioner always has close relationships with Beijing and hk people have no faith on Chinese legal system, so hk people worried that Beijing can arrest whoever they want as long as the hk people have ever visited the mainland China. Then amendment is made that only several serious kinds of crime are included, like murder rape robbery etc, what they worried like politic/economy crime are excluded, and also the evidence shall be checked by HK legal system. The amended one I think is fine. If you did such crime, you shall get punished. But still some of hk people think PRC is like an evil, if they want to arrest you they will make fake evidence etc, and don’t accept any kind of extradition (in my opinion, if you think mainland China is such bad, you shall never visit mainland, and then there is no way they can find you guilty). And some of them are being told that even thought hk government make a compromise, they will do what they want eventually (pass the first draft), so we shall stop the government at very beginning. So why hk citizen think it will affect their freedom? Simple, for example, if a citizen is in hk and always has negative comment against PRC, PRC hate this citizen and can do nothing. But after the extradition PRC can say that such citizen is against Chinese law when he visited the mainland (making up some fake evidence), and ask hk government to extradite this citizen. So they think they lost their freedom (but IMO, they just have strong bias against PRC). so China reacted by compromising? if China reacted by compromising and amending the bill so that it is like most extradition deals between neighbouring allies then China did the right thing. Yes they made compromise, but the key thing is for riots and people who support the riots, they don’t trust the entire PRC legal system, they think your compromise will not stop you arresting hk people if you want, so they will deny any extradition bill between mainland and hk, whatever the bill itself is reasonable or not. And till now, extradition bill itself does not matter, the riots are seeking for independence. I don’t want to comment about what they think is right or wrong, but I just don’t agree they are using violence, threating people’s security, to force government, force us to agree with them. In fact, many of us think they are no different with the RED GUARDS in the culture revolution period in China. A restaurant owner claim supporting the hk police, then they destroyed the restaurant, a normal guy yelling hk belongs to China, they beat the guy, they don’t allow any different voices, it is not the freedom at all. So I personally hold strong negative feeling to those people who know nothing about the current situation of hk and just saying I support the protest, give them freedom.
While I obviously don't know anything about your countries actual situation from what I have read China is not respecting the 1984 commitment to respect the 1 country 2 systems deal. From what I have read China openly deny the deal and consider it void and null. That says everything about HKs precarious situation, if China is open about them not respecting the deal it shows they plan is to incorporate HK in mainland China.
It seems to me China is pulling HK into mainland China one small step at a time, sure even if you are right and this one bill isn't a big step you must agree it is a small one and a thousand small ones makes a mile. When is the "right" time for protests to arrise before the situation has gotten too much out of hand, which small step should trigger the resistance before it is too late?
I am very ignorent of the whole situation but from what I have read it seems there are few solutions besides HK assimilating into China or HK gaining independence. Especially since China deny the validity of the agreement but even if they honored it the deal is on the clock, 50 years from 1984.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On October 10 2019 23:05 Herpin_Along wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 20:05 tigon_ridge wrote:
When you choose to compromise your own integrity in order to appease the mob... In the long run, that will be bad for business. I could easily replace this with "When you choose to compromise your own integrity in order to appease an incredibly sensitive authoritarian regime... In the long run, that will be bad for business" Like seriously people. I don't get this view - it's such a bad long-term business model to subjugate yourself to China like this. Like the whole NBA thing - it was a fucking tweet. Like this huge shitstorm was caused by a god damn tweet. China has cut all official business ties with the NBA - and let me repeat this again - over a god damn tweet, in a country where people actually have freedom of speech. You will never be able to control people to that extent in a place like America, where anti-authoritarian tendencies run strong (which is great, btw, its one part of the US I appreciate a lot). I genuinely hope that businesses start to reconsider investing in China over this shit. How are you ever going to satisfy the whims of a capricious, incredibly easily offended authoritarian regime? A regime that can, on a whim, essentially nullify any investment you've made in the country - over a god damn tweet. Like the NBA is literally going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars over a tweet from someone that they actually can't even control. Investing hundreds of millions into a country like that just seems like bad business to me.
I feel this is a good point, relating back to the original discussion.
The NBA example being bigger than the Blizzard one, but can you even kowtow to Chinese demands realistically? It’s completely unsustainable if individuals within your organisation making their personal opinions known basically land your whole company on the hook for offended sensibilities.
I disagree with doing it on a moral level anyway, but even purely pragmatically it doesn’t seem particularly wise to pursue this course.
China if anything is getting more sensitive and more bold in recent times, rather than gradually shifting in the other direction.
|
Many revolutions turn over against themselves a la the Ropespierre Reign of Terror.
I posted this previously... but its probably been lost in the cross fire. I went to school with a bunch of guys from Hong Kong whose families bolted in 1997 because they thought the 1997 deal was BS. Hong Kong people mistrusting China is a long felt sentiment.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On October 10 2019 23:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Many revolutions turn over against themselves a la the Ropespierre Reign of Terror.
I posted this previously... but its probably been lost in the cross fire. I went to school with a bunch of guys from Hong Kong whose families bolted in 1997 because they thought the 1997 deal was BS. Hong Kong people mistrusting China is a long felt sentiment.
Many don’t, or many fail but lay the crumbs for later changes to come. They do vary a fair bit.
There’s not really a singular common thread between violent political agitation through human history, bar almost always it only escalated to violence because of a lack of concessions from whatever group had the power, and a perception that it’s the only option available.
|
this thread hasn't been about what it was originally about in a long time now. just saying.
of course all these issues are worth debating, but maybe the main issue at hand here, in a forum for a Blizzard game, is the thing Blizzard did.
|
On October 10 2019 23:05 Herpin_Along wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 20:05 tigon_ridge wrote:
When you choose to compromise your own integrity in order to appease the mob... In the long run, that will be bad for business. I could easily replace this with "When you choose to compromise your own integrity in order to appease an incredibly sensitive authoritarian regime... In the long run, that will be bad for business" + Show Spoiler +
Like seriously people. I don't get this view - it's such a bad long-term business model to subjugate yourself to China like this. Like the whole NBA thing - it was a fucking tweet. Like this huge shitstorm was caused by a god damn tweet. China has cut all official business ties with the NBA - and let me repeat this again - over a god damn tweet, in a country where people actually have freedom of speech. You will never be able to control people to that extent in a place like America, where anti-authoritarian tendencies run strong (which is great, btw, its one part of the US I appreciate a lot).
I genuinely hope that businesses start to reconsider investing in China over this shit. How are you ever going to satisfy the whims of a capricious, incredibly easily offended authoritarian regime? A regime that can, on a whim, essentially nullify any investment you've made in the country - over a god damn tweet. Like the NBA is literally going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars over a tweet from someone that they actually can't even control.
Investing hundreds of millions into a country like that just seems like bad business to me
.
And that's why this time something has to be diffrent with all the hashtags and shit.
If ActiBlizzard, NBA, Apple, VANS and all the others learn that they will lose money in all other countries, making up 90% of their sales revenue, they have to consider to unbend the knee.
And if the chinese government snaps, it's on them to explain to millions why the service and products become restricted.
They will have to fabricate stories, and answer questions.
If this is let go again, there won't be many more chances to spot the subtle changes in products, marketing and storytelling, that are made to please the chinese censors. Companies will get better in hiding when and how they collaborated with government oversight.
|
On October 10 2019 23:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Many revolutions turn over against themselves a la the Ropespierre Reign of Terror.
I posted this previously... but its probably been lost in the cross fire. I went to school with a bunch of guys from Hong Kong whose families bolted in 1997 because they thought the 1997 deal was BS. Hong Kong people mistrusting China is a long felt sentiment.
Don't know what a social revolution with a governement enduring plots (Dumouriez's betrayal was hard), the learning of democracy with tough political struggles within the Convention (confronted to a renewed problematic of centralism), a war with almost all Europe they didn't want and a civil war which was provoked by it as anything to do with with a bunch of rich golden boys demonstrating in the street. The Revolution devoring itself cliche is more a set of harsh measures in order to keep the invaders, who promised a restauration and a slaughter, in check (until the law of june 1794)
The phenomen can not be compared, this is not the same goals, means or "radicalization".
|
Bisutopia19327 Posts
Everyone has done a pretty good job of providing discussion. In the spirit of continued discussion this has been moved to general where you are encourage to continue constructive conversations with each other. 
|
On October 11 2019 00:07 Schelim wrote:
this thread hasn't been about what it was originally about in a long time now. just saying.
of course all these issues are worth debating, but maybe the main issue at hand here, in a forum for a Blizzard game, is the thing Blizzard did.
The things Blizzard did are meaningless without the rest of the discussion about China-KH politics. It's about way more than just "someone was banned from competing and a couple of people were fired" and whether or not people agree with that, and all of the issues being discussed show why their actions are deplorable. "In a forum for a video game..." you should talk about the full picture, just as you should in any forum. If you don't want to listen, you don't have to.
Other aspects of the discussions going on here are censorship and denialism by China and mainland China supporters, which serves to highlight... just, so many things, I don't even know where to begin. I appreciate that it's being allowed to continue in this thread, and allowed to continue to be corrected by other objective, passionate users.
|
On October 11 2019 00:13 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 23:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Many revolutions turn over against themselves a la the Ropespierre Reign of Terror.
I posted this previously... but its probably been lost in the cross fire. I went to school with a bunch of guys from Hong Kong whose families bolted in 1997 because they thought the 1997 deal was BS. Hong Kong people mistrusting China is a long felt sentiment. Don't know what a social revolution with a governement enduring plots (Dumouriez's betrayal was hard), the learning of democracy with tough political struggles within the Convention (confronted to a renewed problematic of centralism), a war with almost all Europe they didn't want and a civil war which was provoked by it as anything to do with with a bunch of rich golden boys demonstrating in the street. The Revolution devoring itself cliche is more a set of harsh measures in order to keep the invaders, who promised a restauration and a slaughter, in check (until the law of june 1794) The phenomen can not be compared, this is not the same goals, means or "radicalization".
a revolution in the name of "freedom" that ends up not allowing it's participants freedom... that is the common thread. i probably should've been more specific.
|
On October 10 2019 23:56 Shuffleblade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 23:47 CraigWT wrote:On October 10 2019 23:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 10 2019 22:24 CraigWT wrote:On October 10 2019 21:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 10 2019 21:49 CraigWT wrote:
Let me tell you the storyline, mid of June when extradition bill news first come out, maybe over a million hk people come out and did a peaceful demonstration and after that the government did the amendment about the bill, then the early July maybe 100k -200k people do the first big protest and started limited violence, Canada extradites its citizens to the USA. This does not mean US laws are enforced in Canada. Can you explain how the extradition bill violates the rights of Hong Kong citizens and then how the amendment to the extradition bill changed things? The key issue is two things: 1. The commissioner has the right to decide if the criminal suspects shall be extradited, 2. What kind of crime shall be included in the extradition bill. Since commissioner always has close relationships with Beijing and hk people have no faith on Chinese legal system, so hk people worried that Beijing can arrest whoever they want as long as the hk people have ever visited the mainland China. Then amendment is made that only several serious kinds of crime are included, like murder rape robbery etc, what they worried like politic/economy crime are excluded, and also the evidence shall be checked by HK legal system. The amended one I think is fine. If you did such crime, you shall get punished. But still some of hk people think PRC is like an evil, if they want to arrest you they will make fake evidence etc, and don’t accept any kind of extradition (in my opinion, if you think mainland China is such bad, you shall never visit mainland, and then there is no way they can find you guilty). And some of them are being told that even thought hk government make a compromise, they will do what they want eventually (pass the first draft), so we shall stop the government at very beginning. So why hk citizen think it will affect their freedom? Simple, for example, if a citizen is in hk and always has negative comment against PRC, PRC hate this citizen and can do nothing. But after the extradition PRC can say that such citizen is against Chinese law when he visited the mainland (making up some fake evidence), and ask hk government to extradite this citizen. So they think they lost their freedom (but IMO, they just have strong bias against PRC). so China reacted by compromising? if China reacted by compromising and amending the bill so that it is like most extradition deals between neighbouring allies then China did the right thing. Yes they made compromise, but the key thing is for riots and people who support the riots, they don’t trust the entire PRC legal system, they think your compromise will not stop you arresting hk people if you want, so they will deny any extradition bill between mainland and hk, whatever the bill itself is reasonable or not. And till now, extradition bill itself does not matter, the riots are seeking for independence. I don’t want to comment about what they think is right or wrong, but I just don’t agree they are using violence, threating people’s security, to force government, force us to agree with them. In fact, many of us think they are no different with the RED GUARDS in the culture revolution period in China. A restaurant owner claim supporting the hk police, then they destroyed the restaurant, a normal guy yelling hk belongs to China, they beat the guy, they don’t allow any different voices, it is not the freedom at all. So I personally hold strong negative feeling to those people who know nothing about the current situation of hk and just saying I support the protest, give them freedom. While I obviously don't know anything about your countries actual situation from what I have read China is not respecting the 1984 commitment to respect the 1 country 2 systems deal. From what I have read China openly deny the deal and consider it void and null. That says everything about HKs precarious situation, if China is open about them not respecting the deal it shows they plan is to incorporate HK in mainland China. It seems to me China is pulling HK into mainland China one small step at a time, sure even if you are right and this one bill isn't a big step you must agree it is a small one and a thousand small ones makes a mile. When is the "right" time for protests to arrise before the situation has gotten too much out of hand, which small step should trigger the resistance before it is too late? I am very ignorent of the whole situation but from what I have read it seems there are few solutions besides HK assimilating into China or HK gaining independence. Especially since China deny the validity of the agreement but even if they honored it the deal is on the clock, 50 years from 1984.
No China is not denying the agreement signed in 1984, but the interpretation between uk and China are different, China think one country is more important than two system, uk think two system is more important than one country (so it raise the question, if hk seeking independence, does China has the right to intervene? Under Chinese interpretation yes under uk no). And China is not pulling hk into mainland since Chinese government always want hk as a role model and show to Taiwan that one country two system works, so what Chinese government really want to do is letting hk people love China, but in the past 10 years, for whatever reason, the relationship between hk people and mainland people get worse and worse, so Chinese government hope to do something to warm the relation (but of course failed) , hopefully you can understand that hk is the battlefield for PRC and western (us and uk) both of them wants to import their values to hk people. Yes you can hold your opinion that socialism is evil and capitalism is right, but to me there is no right or wrong for both system (both of system have big flaws) , but I just don’t accept using violence to force us accepting their value
|
Chinese Communism is fake as. China is basicly one big company in the capitalist market.
|
On October 10 2019 23:57 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 23:05 Herpin_Along wrote:On October 10 2019 20:05 tigon_ridge wrote:
When you choose to compromise your own integrity in order to appease the mob... In the long run, that will be bad for business. I could easily replace this with "When you choose to compromise your own integrity in order to appease an incredibly sensitive authoritarian regime... In the long run, that will be bad for business" Like seriously people. I don't get this view - it's such a bad long-term business model to subjugate yourself to China like this. Like the whole NBA thing - it was a fucking tweet. Like this huge shitstorm was caused by a god damn tweet. China has cut all official business ties with the NBA - and let me repeat this again - over a god damn tweet, in a country where people actually have freedom of speech. You will never be able to control people to that extent in a place like America, where anti-authoritarian tendencies run strong (which is great, btw, its one part of the US I appreciate a lot). I genuinely hope that businesses start to reconsider investing in China over this shit. How are you ever going to satisfy the whims of a capricious, incredibly easily offended authoritarian regime? A regime that can, on a whim, essentially nullify any investment you've made in the country - over a god damn tweet. Like the NBA is literally going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars over a tweet from someone that they actually can't even control. Investing hundreds of millions into a country like that just seems like bad business to me. I feel this is a good point, relating back to the original discussion. The NBA example being bigger than the Blizzard one, but can you even kowtow to Chinese demands realistically? It’s completely unsustainable if individuals within your organisation making their personal opinions known basically land your whole company on the hook for offended sensibilities. I disagree with doing it on a moral level anyway, but even purely pragmatically it doesn’t seem particularly wise to pursue this course. China if anything is getting more sensitive and more bold in recent times, rather than gradually shifting in the other direction.
This is the right point, Chinese people are way more sensitive than before, because the government tries to lead people to this direction. It’s wrong but it’s the fact. And globally, globalisation is broken, many of the major countries are becoming more conservative than before, which is not a good sign (like China US UK France Germany etc). But for the company that wants to do business with China, they have to accept this fact. They have to accept the fact that it is much easier to offend Chinese people than before, so if you want this market, you better not comment about politics (again maybe it’s wrong, but it’s the fact)
For blizzard, they of course believe stand with mainland Chinese is better than stand with protests. That’s it.
|
On October 11 2019 00:37 CraigWT wrote:
And globally, globalisation is broken, many of the major countries are becoming more conservative than before, which is not a good sign (like China US UK France Germany etc). But for the company that wants to do business with China,
are you stating every instance of every geographical area becoming more conservative is bad?
i think it depends on circumstances in each individual area.
|
On October 11 2019 00:07 Schelim wrote:
this thread hasn't been about what it was originally about in a long time now. just saying.
of course all these issues are worth debating, but maybe the main issue at hand here, in a forum for a Blizzard game, is the thing Blizzard did.
Is it not important to discuss the root behind why what Blizzard did was bad as well? It's weird to arbitrarily limit a discussion to only one thing in a bubble without looking at the bigger picture.
|
On October 11 2019 00:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 00:37 CraigWT wrote:
And globally, globalisation is broken, many of the major countries are becoming more conservative than before, which is not a good sign (like China US UK France Germany etc). But for the company that wants to do business with China,
are you stating every instance of every geographical area becoming more conservative is bad? i think it depends on circumstances in each individual area.
Yes, this is my opinion. I don’t think this situation is good. Maybe because I live in a conservative area and I don’t think more and more conservative is good. The world needs balance, conservative is easy to bring the populism, which I think is bad
|
On October 11 2019 00:16 BisuDagger wrote:Everyone has done a pretty good job of providing discussion. In the spirit of continued discussion this has been moved to general where you are encourage to continue constructive conversations with each other.
Will TeamLiquid (and aXiomatic Gaming LLC with its controlling interest) release a statement regarding Blizzard's actions, despite potential repercussions for its players competing in future tournaments in China? The cowardice from a major profic-centric corporation (Activision Blizzard) is almost expected in longstanding corporate tradition.
The more player-facing organizations that have taken stands on social issues have less power and a lot to lose, but still must show that stuff like "TL Loves Esports, Equally" wasn't only posted because there was little backlash to fear. Does TeamLiquid still have values when it might have steep costs?
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On October 11 2019 00:37 CraigWT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 23:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 10 2019 23:05 Herpin_Along wrote:On October 10 2019 20:05 tigon_ridge wrote:
When you choose to compromise your own integrity in order to appease the mob... In the long run, that will be bad for business. I could easily replace this with "When you choose to compromise your own integrity in order to appease an incredibly sensitive authoritarian regime... In the long run, that will be bad for business" Like seriously people. I don't get this view - it's such a bad long-term business model to subjugate yourself to China like this. Like the whole NBA thing - it was a fucking tweet. Like this huge shitstorm was caused by a god damn tweet. China has cut all official business ties with the NBA - and let me repeat this again - over a god damn tweet, in a country where people actually have freedom of speech. You will never be able to control people to that extent in a place like America, where anti-authoritarian tendencies run strong (which is great, btw, its one part of the US I appreciate a lot). I genuinely hope that businesses start to reconsider investing in China over this shit. How are you ever going to satisfy the whims of a capricious, incredibly easily offended authoritarian regime? A regime that can, on a whim, essentially nullify any investment you've made in the country - over a god damn tweet. Like the NBA is literally going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars over a tweet from someone that they actually can't even control. Investing hundreds of millions into a country like that just seems like bad business to me. I feel this is a good point, relating back to the original discussion. The NBA example being bigger than the Blizzard one, but can you even kowtow to Chinese demands realistically? It’s completely unsustainable if individuals within your organisation making their personal opinions known basically land your whole company on the hook for offended sensibilities. I disagree with doing it on a moral level anyway, but even purely pragmatically it doesn’t seem particularly wise to pursue this course. China if anything is getting more sensitive and more bold in recent times, rather than gradually shifting in the other direction. This is the right point, Chinese people are way more sensitive than before, because the government tries to lead people to this direction. It’s wrong but it’s the fact. And globally, globalisation is broken, many of the major countries are becoming more conservative than before, which is not a good sign (like China US UK France Germany etc). But for the company that wants to do business with China, they have to accept this fact. They have to accept the fact that it is much easier to offend Chinese people than before, so if you want this market, you better not comment about politics (again maybe it’s wrong, but it’s the fact) For blizzard, they of course believe stand with mainland Chinese is better than stand with protests. That’s it.
Things have shifted in meaningful political ways that much is true, although I don’t feel there’s been a shift to conservatism in the West amongst the populace’s at large.
Globalisation, or whatever you want to call it is not functioning particularly well lately, absolutely. It should be a mutual process, whereupon cultures mingle but still keep their character and distinct identity, ideas and goods are exchanged etc.
Trump’s retarded adversarial approach to China does not help either. We’ve got a ridiculous, utterly unviable ‘trade war’, which I disagree with entirely, and utterly lacking any kind of values push of any kind.
Same with the Gulf States as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
